COU 4: Wondering

In this check-of-understanding, you’ll use the model of collective action developed in the lesson just as a political scientist would: As a source of questions, not knowledge about what happens in real-world collective action problems and why.

We pointed out in the lesson that the model raises five questions about how any given real-world collective action problem plays out:

Imagine that you are in contact with about two dozen persons who were aware of one of the proposed construction projects that was the subject of one of the hearings in Einstein’s, Glick’s and Palmer’s data. Some of these persons were opposed to the proposed project, and some supported it. Some of these persons went to the hearing and made an argument for their side of the issue and some did not.

Each of these persons has agreed to sit down with you for an interview in which you will ask them about their experiences leading up to and during the hearing (if they attended it) on the proposed construction project.

Instructions

First, write three open-ended questions you will ask each person in the interview. Each question should be open-ended, meaning that it should not be answerable with a single word, such as “yes” or “no”, or with a discrete and definite fact such as “I attended the hearing”. Open-ended questions typically ask a person to describe and explain thoughts, feelings, experiences and events. If you need to ask a “yes-or-no” question to make a subsequent open-ended question make sense, write that yes-or-no question down. It just doesn’t count as one of your required three open-ended questions! For instance:

Question 1: [Not open-ended!] Did you attend the hearing?

Question 2: [Open-ended!] (If the answer to Q1 is ‘yes’) What do you remember thinking about…? (If the answer to Q1 is ‘no’) Looking back on that decision, why do you think…?

Together, the three open-ended questions you write down must be designed to produce answers that will shed light on:

  • How and the extent to which each person thought about how the work of advocating for their position regarding the proposed construction project would be distributed between the persons who shared their position towards the project.
  • How their thoughts about the distribution of the work of advocating for their position informed or affected the actions they took regarding the proposed construction project. (E.g. how it affected their choice to show up or not show up at the hearing; How it affected what they said if they did show up; How it affected any interactions they had with other persons aware of the project leading up to the hearing and afterwards, etc.)

Second, in three-quarters-to-one page of double-spaced text, write down imaginary answers to your questions by one imaginary interviewee that if given would reveal something important about the distribution of the burden of action within that interviewee’s group that the model of collective action developed in the lesson mis-represents or fails to represent.

Third, in one-half-to-one page of double-spaced text, describe and explain what the imaginary answer you wrote down reveals about the distribution of the burden of action within the interviewee’s group that the model developed in the lesson mis-represents or fails to represent AND explain why that thing that the model mis-represents or fails to represent is important.

Rubric

You can get up to six points on this COU, two points for each of the three parts. But to get more than two points, your answer has to get full credit (two points) on part one, since evaluation of any answers to parts two and three require a full-credit answer on part one! And to get more than four points, your answer has to get full credit on both parts one and two, since evaluation of any answer to part three requires full-credit answers to parts one and two!

You don’t give an answer to part one that meets all the requirements. Specifically, you must:

  • Write three questions you will ask each person in the interview.
  • Each question must be open-ended, meaning that it should not be answerable with a single word, such as “yes” or “no”, or with a discrete and definite fact such as “I attended the hearing”. Open-ended questions typically ask a person to describe and explain thoughts, feelings, experiences and events.
  • The three questions you write together must shed light on how and the extent to which each person thought about how the work of advocating for their position regarding the proposed construction project would be distributed between them and the other persons who shared their position towards the project and how their thoughts about the distribution of the work of advocating for their position informed or affected the actions they took regarding the proposed construction project.

You give an answer to part one that gets full credit for that part. But you give an answer to part two that does not amount to imaginary answers to all three of the questions you wrote for part one.

You give an answer to part one that gets full credit for that part and for part two you write imaginary answers to all three questions you wrote in part one. This gives you a “base score” of 4 points. We then add up to 2 points on the basis of your answer to part three as follows:

  • We add 0 points if what you wrote doesn’t describe and explain what the imaginary answer you wrote down reveals about the distribution of the burden of action within the interviewee’s group that the model developed in the lesson mis-represents or fails to represent OR doesn’t explain why what the model mis-represents or fails to represent is important or both.
  • We add 1 point if what you wrote both describes and explains what the imaginary answer you wrote down reveals about the distribution of the burden of action within the interviewee’s group that the model developed in the lesson mis-represents or fails to represent and explains why what the model mis-represents or fails to represent is important, BUT what you write reveals an important misunderstanding of the model from the lesson OR has errors of spelling, grammar or usage that make it difficult to understand.
  • We add 2 points if what you wrote both describes and explains what the imaginary answer you wrote down reveals about the distribution of the burden of action within the interviewee’s group that the model developed in the lesson mis-represents or fails to represent and explains why what the model mis-represents or fails to represent is important or both, AND what you wrote employs a correct understanding of the model from the lesson AND is free of errors of spelling, grammar or usage that would make it difficult to understand.